Go to page

Go to page

Apple is making the MacBook Pro with Retina display faster and more affordable with updated processors and lower starting prices. The 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display now starts at $1,499 for 128 GB of flash, and $1,699 for a new 2.6 GHz processor and 256 GB of flash. The 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display now features a faster 2.4 GHz quad-core processor, and the top-of-the-line 15-inch notebook comes with a new 2.7 GHz quad-core processor and 16 GB of memory. Apple today also announced that the 13-inch MacBook Air with 256 GB of flash has a new lower price of $1,399.

The MacBook Pro with Retina display features the world's highest resolution notebook display. Whether you're reading emails, writing text, editing home movies in HD or retouching professional photography, everything appears vibrant, detailed and sharp, delivering an unrivaled viewing experience. The MacBook Pro with Retina display features flash storage that is up to four times faster than traditional notebook hard drives, and delivers improved reliability, instant-on responsiveness and up to 30 days of standby time.

Pricing & Availability
The updated MacBook Pro with Retina display and MacBook Air models are available today through the Apple Online Store (www.apple.com), Apple's retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. Pricing details, technical specifications, configure-to-order options and accessories are available online at www.apple.com/macbook-pro and www.apple.com/macbookair.

That $1,400 is more than I paid for my Asus G75 and thats with a 17" 1080p display, i7-3610QM, and a gtx 660m. At some point people are going to realize all they are paying for with Apple is a brand. Not to mention why would I want a retina display on a laptop? Apple needs to quit pushing their over-hyped displays into all of their products especially a 13" laptop :shadedshu

That $1,400 is more than I paid for my Asus G75 and thats with a 17" 1080p display, i7-3610QM, and a gtx 660m. At some point people are going to realize all they are paying for with Apple is a brand. Not to mention why would I want a retina display on a laptop? Apple needs to quit pushing their over-hyped displays into all of their products especially a 13" laptop :shadedshu

Why do you need 2560x1600 on a 13" display? Sounds to me like Apple got a good deal on some displays and are making a killing on people that apparently don't know what they are doing or looking at? ALSO its not like the GPU in that thing can even PUSH anything at 2560x1600. Would be good to watch blu-rays on it.......oh wait THERE IS NO OPTICAL DRIVE.

This. It would hardly be practical to try and do image manipulation or video editing on a 17" laptop let alone one of their 13" toys. It's not about cramming as many pixels into your display as possible it comes down to is it practical and the real answer in this instance is no.

Why do you need 2560x1600 on a 13" display? Sounds to me like Apple got a good deal on some displays and are making a killing on people that apparently don't know what they are doing or looking at? ALSO its not like the GPU in that thing can even PUSH anything at 2560x1600. Would be good to watch blu-rays on it.......oh wait THERE IS NO OPTICAL DRIVE.

I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).

I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).

I don't know now- so many opinions. Is this a good example then?: Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone may be can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.

I certainly dont need 2560x1600 on a 13" display, but I am sure there are people out there who will need them. This product caters to those people, not people like me who is fine with 1366x768 on 15". Blu-ray? Well given that Blu-ray is only capable of doing 1080p those people who prefer to watch movies on their laptop screens will be better served by buying other native 1080p laptops which come with a blu-ray drive. Simple.

Yes, 1fps with 2560x1600 screen is pretty useless to most, but people looking to play games should look elsewhere instead of considering MBP Retina. Well if they buy MBP Retina and attempt to game on it bless their courage (or stupidity).

My point is man I work in the field where 2560x1600 is NICE to have but, at 13" its USELESS. This isn't me hating on Apple. Been using Apple since before the clone days. Older Macs were tanks and well thought out. Graphite's, Quicksilvers, Mirror Doors. Bad ASS towers. These prices for what you get now are NOT worth the money. The build quality is no where what they were 10 years ago AND now 1,400 bucks for a 13" screen? DAFUQ! Anyway that's all Im gonna say on this because a lot of people will chime in just because its Apple and cool to hate. I don't "hate" on them. I'm just sad Apple isn't what it used to be and now that Jobs is gone it will never go back.

You are kidding right? I give you a scenario or two. Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.

You are kidding right? I give you a scenario or two. Middle/high ranked manager on the run....try opening a couple of Excell spreadsheets to manage your data when making an analysis? - now do it on 1366x768- feel the difference? Your are an university professor on the run, writing his PhD, pls multitask on 1366x768 and write me back. I get your point that for video editting you need moar power and stuff, but sometimes, someone can benefit from a 13 inch hi-res display.

Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.

This is the only reason I ask, I am not flaming or saying down with apple but I am questioning their need for such a large resolution on a tiny screen size. I could imagine they could turn the DPI up but then it would not be worth the added resolution size get my argument?

Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.

Just increase font size, simple. Mac is not Windows where if you change the font size it screws everything up.

I don't know who needs 2560x1600, but laws of economics states that if there is a product at a price there will be a number (including 0) of people who will need/want it. The best I can do is those graphic designers who needs a mobile platform (obviously TMM is not included), or someone who cannot stand shitty resolutions (I have had "arguments" with people who apparently can't stand 1366x768 and would prefer 1920x1080, I believe same reasons apply for people going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1600).

Finally, laptops need to stop embarrassing themselves when compared to smartphones, SGSIII has 1280x720 4.8". Yes you don't hold your laptop as close to your face as your phone, but lets not go there.